Techdirt. Stories filed under "oversight"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "oversight"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:41:08 PSTHead Of UK Parliamentary Committee Overseeing Intelligence Agencies Resigns After Being Caught In StingGlyn Moodyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150223/08351130114/head-uk-parliamentary-committee-overseeing-intelligence-agencies-allegedly-caught-cash-access-sting.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150223/08351130114/head-uk-parliamentary-committee-overseeing-intelligence-agencies-allegedly-caught-cash-access-sting.shtml
The UK government's response to Snowden's leaks has been twofold: that everything is legal, and that everything is subject to rigorous scrutiny. We now know that the first of these is not true, and the second is hardly credible either, given that the UK's main intelligence watchdog has only one full-time member. There's one other main oversight body, the UK's Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC), which is tasked with examining:

the policy, administration and expenditure of the Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ).

The ISC was criticized as part of a larger condemnation of intelligence oversight by another UK Parliament committee. The head of the ISC, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, was reported by the Guardian as dismissing those criticisms as "old hat," as if that somehow made them acceptable. Rifkind has now been caught up in a rather more serious row, which involves reporters from the UK's Channel 4 and The Telegraph newspaper posing as representatives of a Chinese company:

PMR, a communications agency based in Hong Kong was set up, backed by a fictitious Chinese businessman. PMR has plenty of money to spend and wants to hire influential British politicians to join its advisory board and get a foothold in the UK and Europe.

Here's what Channel 4 and the Telegraph allege happened in their meeting with Rifkind:

Sir Malcolm also claimed he could write to a minister on behalf of our company without saying exactly who he was representing

Sir Malcolm added that he could see any foreign ambassador in London if he wanted, so could provide 'access' that is 'useful'

Rifkind said that he was "self-employed" -- in fact, he is a Member of Parliament, and receives a salary of £67,000 per year -- and that his normal fee was "somewhere in the region of £5,000 to £8,000" for half a day's work. There's no suggestion that Rifkind made any reference during the sting to his role as head of the ISC, but that's not really the point. He was offering a Chinese company access to influential people purely because he would get paid to do so, and that is surely not the kind of person you would want to grant the high-level security clearance Rifkind enjoys.

Then there is the question of what happens when Rifkind leaves Parliament: as Techdirt noted back in 2012, politicians can earn huge amounts of money by going to work as lobbyists, drawing on their contacts to ease the path for legislation or contracts or whatever. According to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, merely letting politicians know that a job as lobbyist was waiting for them if they wanted it can be enough to shift their loyalties. That would be hugely troubling if it concerned someone occupying such a sensitive position as Rifkind.

After initially being suspended from the Conservative party, pending a disciplinary review, Rifkind has now resigned as chairman of the ISC, and announced that he will not be a candidate for re-election in the UK's general election later this year. He probably decided to fall on his sword in an attempt to spare the UK government further embarrassment, but his move will do little to bolster the dwindling credibility of the ISC, or the repeated claim that there are no problems with oversight of UK intelligence services.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>a-question-of-trusthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150223/08351130114Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:31:00 PSTPrivacy Board Says NSA Doesn't Know How Effective Its Collection Programs Are, Doesn't Much Care EitherTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150129/14472929860/privacy-board-says-nsa-doesnt-know-how-effective-its-collection-programs-are-doesnt-much-care-either.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150129/14472929860/privacy-board-says-nsa-doesnt-know-how-effective-its-collection-programs-are-doesnt-much-care-either.shtml
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) has just released its assessment [pdf link] of the NSA's ability to follow instructions. One year ago, it assessed the Section 215 bulk records collection. Six months later, it assessed the Section 702 program, which hoovers up email communications. Now, it has followed up on its recommendations and found the NSA surprisingly cooperative.

Overall, the Board has found that the Administration and the Intelligence Community have been responsive to its recommendations. The Administration has accepted virtually all of the recommendations in the Board’s Section 702 report and has begun implementing many of them. It also has accepted many of the recommendations in the Board’s Section 215 report and has supported legislation that would satisfy several more, including the most far-reaching of the Board’s proposals.

BUT:

However, many of the recommendations directed at the Administration have yet to be fully satisfied, with the Administration having taken only partial steps, at most, toward implementing them.

The first recommendation was one of the biggest: end the Section 215 program. The NSA doesn't really want to do this, but has seemed receptive to making some changes. The administration, on the other hand, hasn't offered anything to date other than lip service in support of this recommendation. It's been left up to legislators and, so far, legislation targeting the collection has failed to move forward. As the PCLOB noted in its assessment, the Section 215 program "lacks a viable legal foundation," as well as "posing a serious threat to privacy and civil liberties." And yet, it continues on unabated, with four renewals by the FISA court since the PCLOB's original assessment was delivered.

The PCLOB is now gently nudging the administration towards taking a hands-on approach.

It should be noted that the Administration can end the bulk telephone records program at any time, without congressional involvement.

On the bright side, the NSA has cut back on the number of hops in its contact chaining and has to seek approval from the FISA court to search its stored records, and it must be able to provide proof of "reasonable articulable suspicion" before it can do so.

The same goes for the introduction of an actual adversarial process to FISA court proceedings with the addition of an advocate acting on behalf of Americans' interests. The NSA is in no hurry to see this done and, again, the administration has offered its support of the board's recommendations but has made no movement on its own. It's left to legislation to fix this, and if earlier NSA-targeting bills are any indication, this will most likely add to the growing pile of papery corpses left behind by failed Congressional fixes.

The NSA is also taking hesitant steps to publicly release more information on FISC orders and rulings. We've seen some of this via the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's tumblr blog. (Still a very odd sentence to type…) But, it must be noted that a large majority of what has been "released" so far has actually been propelled out of the ODNI's hands by a handful of FOIA lawsuits. So, this new "openness" is not entirely dissimilar to confessions that take "enhanced interrogation techniques" to acquire.

As for the Section 702 program, the PCLOB has recommended a number of technical changes, most of which are at least partly implemented at this point. What's more worrying is the fact that the NSA still continues to harvest "about" communications, thanks to its ability to talk a hesitant FISA court into a "novel" legal theory while operating under interim legislation back in 2007.

The PCLOB raises several concerns about the Section 702's harvesting of communications based on very tenuous connections.

[T]he permissible scope of targeting in the Section 702 program is broad enough that targets need not themselves be suspected terrorists or other bad actors. Thus, if the email address of a target appears in the body of a communication between two non-targets, it does not necessarily mean that either of the communicants is in touch with a suspected terrorist...

While “about” collection is valued by the government for its unique intelligence benefits, it is, to a large degree, an inevitable byproduct of the way the NSA conducts much of its upstream collection. At least some forms of “about” collection present novel and difficult issues regarding the balance between privacy and national security. But current technological limits make any debate about the proper balance somewhat academic, because it is largely unfeasible to limit “about” collection without also eliminating a substantial portion of upstream’s “to/from” collection, which would more drastically hinder the government’s counterterrorism efforts. We therefore recommend that the NSA work to develop technology that would enable it to identify and distinguish among the 24 types of “about” collection at the acquisition stage, and then selectively limit or modify its “about” collection, as may later be deemed appropriate.

The PCLOB also urges the release of information concerning the NSA, FBI and CIA's minimization procedures and stats on how often the NSA acquires and uses the communications of US persons -- both of which are in the "being considered" to "being implemented" stages.

Most importantly, the PCLOB recommends the NSA cough up some evidence that these collections actually have any value. Unsurprisingly, this falls under the "not implemented" heading. And the ODNI/NSA's stalling only makes it look as though these programs are all show, but little substance.

Determining the efficacy and value of particular counterterrorism programs is critical. Without such determinations, policymakers and courts cannot effectively weigh the interests of the government in conducting a program against the intrusions on privacy and civil liberties that it may cause.

Those on the surveillance side always remind us that there needs to be a balance between national security and civil liberties, but the agencies they defend have never bothered to examine the security/privacy ledger. And they're in no hurry to do so. The Section 215 program's effectiveness is highly dubious, and as for the Section 702 program, we (including the PCLOB) don't have enough information to even begin weighing its comparative value. For all the forced transparency, there simply hasn't been much forthcoming on the program itself, much less how useful it is in terms of counterterrorism.

If the NSA wishes to continue its plundering of privacy in pursuit of security, it needs to provide some hard data to back up its assertions that these programs are essential to the safety of the nation. It won't make the plundering OK, but at least it will give the public some idea where their rights stand in the NSA's eyes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>pay-no-attention-to-the-men-behind-the-haystackshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150129/14472929860Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:07:32 PSTNew Senate Intelligence Boss Demands That White House 'Return' CIA Torture Report CopiesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150121/17003129772/new-senate-intelligence-boss-demands-that-white-return-cia-torture-report-copies.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150121/17003129772/new-senate-intelligence-boss-demands-that-white-return-cia-torture-report-copies.shtmlwould be buried. That was before the redacted version of the executive summary was released, and it was written to explain why an agreement needed to be reached to release the report before the new Congress took over. However, what we didn't expect was that Senator Burr, upon taking office, would then take the rather unprecedented step of trying to bury the report anyway.

Burr, upon taking charge in January, wrote to the executive branch and the federal agencies in receipt of the document, and asked that it be returned to the committee, as he did not feel it was a valid disclosure.

“It gets pretty technical,” Burr said, confirming he sent the letter. The full document, he explained, had been voted complete in the 112th Congress, and the release of the executive summary was voted on by the 113th Congress.

But what wasn’t ever agreed upon, said Burr, was the disclosure of the full report to several arms of the federal government, which prompted his letter demanding all copies be returned.

And, that's not all he's asking for. He's also demanding back the so-called "Panetta Review," which was the internal review, done by the CIA of the torture program, with findings that largely mirrored the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. The Panetta Review had been done, on the orders of then director Leon Panetta, and the CIA insists it was only meant for internal use at the CIA. At some point, however, according to the Intelligence Committee staffers, the CIA gave a draft of that document over to the those staffers. That resulted in then Senator Mark Udall asking the CIA for the final review -- leading the CIA to freak out that a Senator knew of the existence of the Panetta Review in the first place.

That, of course, resulted in the CIA then spying on the Senate staffers' computers to find out how they got the document and the CIA ridiculously claiming that the staffers had violated criminal laws in removing the document from the network and storing it in a safe place. Udall, before leaving Congress, argued that the Panetta Review should be released, but Burr has (not surprisingly) demanded the document back.

Once again, this raises some serious questions about what Senator Burr thinks his role is. Is it oversight of the CIA -- or is he the CIA's protector? Because the demands for both of these reports to be "returned" so that he can more or less destroy them, certainly suggests the latter, rather than the former.

And, as ridiculous as it may sound to demand the return of these reports, it's more than just a gesture of solidarity with the CIA. The ACLU is currently suing the CIA over its refusal to release the Panetta Review under a FOIA request and also the federal government for refusing to release the full CIA torture report. Having that information in other parts of the government make it more likely that a court could order it to be turned over. But Burr seems to be focused on making sure that it's only held by "friendly" parties who might destroy this important historical document, detailing the CIA's abuses. As the ACLU noted in a statement:

“Senator Burr is supposed to be overseeing the CIA, not covering up its crimes. The full Senate torture report was given to Executive Branch agencies to be widely used to make sure that the federal government learns its lesson and never uses torture again. Senator Burr’s attempt to recall the report seems like a bid to thwart Congress’s own Freedom of Information Act, which protects the rights of the American people to learn about their own government. Americans should ask, if Senator Burr isn’t going to serve his role in the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, then why did he want to be chairman of the intelligence committee? This is a poor start to a chairmanship.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>so-they-can-be-burnedhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20150121/17003129772Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:35:48 PDTWashington Law Enforcement Hides Stingray Purchase And Use From Everyone, But It's OK Because They're Fighting CrimeTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140828/09564828349/washington-law-enforcement-hides-stingray-purchase-use-everyone-its-ok-because-theyre-fighting-crime.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140828/09564828349/washington-law-enforcement-hides-stingray-purchase-use-everyone-its-ok-because-theyre-fighting-crime.shtml
More news of secret surveillance has been uncovered, thanks to FOIA requests. Police in Tacoma, Washington have a Stingray device and have been using it, unbeknownst to pretty much everyone in the area. And it's not just a recent development. According to information obtained by The News Tribune, this dates back more than a half-decade.

Deputy City Attorney Michael Smith redacted much of the identifying information on a May 2013 invoice for the equipment, saying disclosure “would allow the identification of confidential pieces of technology.”

However, unredacted portions of those public records as well as other documents reviewed by The News Tribune indicate the Police Department has had the ability to wirelessly search neighborhoods since as early as 2008.

So, why is this information just coming out now? For one, law enforcement hasn't been particularly forthcoming. Harris has its own restrictive non-disclosure agreements to keep mouths shut, but the factor specifically cited in this article is the federal government.

Police Chief Don Ramsdell, through a spokeswoman, declined an interview request to talk about the police department’s apparent purchase of a Stingray device and associated technology. The department cited a nondisclosure agreement it has with the FBI.

So, the FBI -- a federal agency -- helped ensure that no one involved with the oversight of law enforcement and its new toys had any idea what was going on.

The people who could have provided some sort of accountability completely failed. Read this sentence and remember that these are people elected to look out for the public's interests.

News that the city was using the surveillance equipment surprised City Council members, who approved an update for a device last year…

Terrible, although some of this can be blamed on the lack of openness within law enforcement. Now, read the second half of that sentence and marvel at the undermining of the criminal justice system.

…and prosecutors, defense attorneys and even judges, who in court deal with evidence gathered using the surveillance equipment.

No one knew. No one. Prosecutors didn't know how the evidence they were using was being obtained and defense attorneys couldn't effectively challenge evidence because its origin was obscured. And if judges don't know, then it means local law enforcement lied about how they were obtaining data, either through parallel construction or simply assuming the gathering of "business records" requires no warrant.

Now that they're informed, the statements they're making are disturbing in their abject cluelessness.

“If they use it wisely and within limits, that’s one thing,” said Ronald Culpepper, the presiding judge of Pierce County Superior Court, when informed of the device Tuesday. “I would certainly personally have some concerns about just sweeping up information from non-involved and innocent parties — and to do it with a whole neighborhood? That’s concerning.”

"Concerning?" "Sweeping up information" is the only way these devices work. They can't target anything because they're not designed to. This isn't like bugging a phone. This is grabbing every record generated and searching it later for what's actually of interest. And Culpepper's "personal concerns" are also those of the public, so he'd better keep that in mind when dealing with this device in the future, rather than placing the "concerns" of law enforcement ahead of his and everyone else's.

Worse yet are the comments of city representatives, who think it's OK for the police to have a device that indiscriminately grabs connection information (and a device that they lied about) because they're the police.

City Manager T.C. Broadnax:

“I’m not in law enforcement, but it’s my impression that it assists them in doing their job more effectively, and that’s to protect the public.”

Mayor Marilyn Strickland:

“If our law enforcement need access to information to prevent crime or keep us safe, that’s a legitimate use of the technology,” she said. “We are more focused on preventing crime and keeping our community safe than getting in people’s business.”

[That "we" is supposed to be you and the public, not you and the police force.]

Councilman David Boe:

“I’ve got to find out what I voted on before I comment.”

[Why bother now?]

Another city council member conceded he was never given details on the purchase he was approving, but that it "doesn't surprise him" that law enforcement has this type of device. The cover-up was OK because it keeps investigations from being compromised. Another council member said she would need to "check with the city manager" before commenting, so we can probably just copy and paste Broadnax's "police fight crime" head nod from above.

But some of these representatives must have known. The public records trail (obtained by MuckRock) shows a memo from 2007 seeking to bypass the competitive bidding process. After the first Stingray was obtained in 2008, the city named Detective Jeffrey Shipp "Employee of the Month," citing this:

“for his work in procuring a $450,000 training and equipment grant for a cellular phone tracking system — one of only five awarded across the country. Great job!”

This money was mostly a DHS grant, and law enforcement cited the technology's usefulness to its "Explosive Ordinance Detail" as the primary reason for the acquisition. No document details how many explosive devices were detected or disarmed using the cell phone tracker. Unsurprising, considering it's being used to track drug dealers and other "normal" criminal activity.

What is also uncovered in the documents is some indication of how the Stingray's use is being concealed. Multiple warrants have been issued for cellphone records, none of which apparently refer to them being collected by a cell tower spoofer. It also looks as if pen register/trap and trace orders are being used as permission slips for dragnet collections. In both cases, law enforcement is using targeted paperwork for untargeted collections. But prosecutor Mark Lindquist says that even though he knew nothing about the device or its usage, everyone's still playing by the rules.

Prosecutors have to be able to defend evidence in court, he said. As far as he knows, local law enforcement is “playing by the rules.”

“None of this evidence has been successfully challenged by the defense, and from that, I can infer that law enforcement is doing it right,” he said. “Both prosecutors and defense attorneys will review warrants and make sure that they are valid.”

That's how you can quantify the "rightness" of evidence obtained through parallel construction? No evidence has been "successfully challenged" by the defense? That's so stupid it must be a misquote. How can you successfully challenge evidence if the paper telling you how it was obtained obscures the true source? In Lindquist's eyes, dealing evidence from the bottom of the deck is "playing by the rules."

And the police haven't been forthcoming about the disposal of incidental data. If the device has been used secretly for a half-dozen years, and everyone in an oversight position is claiming to have just heard about it now, there's very likely no minimization guidelines or policies. There are hints that irrelevant data is deleted, but there's nothing in here that says how long its retained before this happens… if it happens.

So, law enforcement buys cell tower spoofers and the FBI encourages them to hide the details. It attempts to obscure it behind some sort of counterterrorism facade (for thwarting IEDs, remember?), gaining it kudos from the city for all the money it managed to talk the DHS out of. It then hides the use from the entirety of the criminal justice system and makes its oversight bodies look like complete fools. And we're supposed to trust them not to abuse the incidental data they collect?

Court documents show that Fairfield Police Officers Stephen Ruiz and Jacob Glashoff used company time and equipment to search for women on internet dating sites.

Just a bad idea, whether you're a government employee or engaged in the private sector rat race. In almost every case, using work computers (while on the clock) to surf dating sites will be a violation of company/agency policy. But there's more.

Court documents allege the officers then used a police-issued computer to look up the women they found appealing in a confidential law enforcement database that connects to the DMV and state and federal records.

There's not a ton of commentary to add here. The basic issue is this: many, many people have access to personal information that the government demands you provide in exchange for essential items like driver's licenses, vehicle/home titles, etc. Connected to these databases is one used to house information on every personbooked by police (notably, not every person convicted or even every person charged).

Some people place a lot of trust in those who have access to this information. This trust is often misplaced. Many others place no trust in those who have this access and yet, there is very little they can do without placing their personal information in the hands of people they actively distrust.

Having verifiable records on hand is a safeguard against fraud and other criminal activity… by the public. The internal safeguards meant to protect citizens from untoward actions by public servants are ultimately useless because the government far too frequently refuses to take serious actions against those who abuse the public's trust. People are given paid suspensions or are allowed to transfer out of the agency rather than face more severe consequences. These two officers face the possibility of criminal charges (after being reported by another officer -- kudos to him or her) but in the meantime, both are still on duty and fully paid. Innocent until proven guilty, sure, but it would seem the police department should have caught this before it became a problem severe enough that felony charges are even being discussed. Externally, police are issuing tickets for expired vehicle tags and other minor lapses. Internally, no one can apparently be bothered to monitor access of sensitive info.

Defenders of surveillance and the wholesale collection of personal information by government entities often claim the Googles and Twitters of the world are just as disinterested in your privacy as any government agency. But you can opt out of Google, Twitter, et al. You can choose to not participate. The government, for the most part, isn't optional. There's no TOS you can read before deciding to do business elsewhere. Your information is gathered, stored and rifled through by any number of people, some of whom are doing it just because their positions give them access.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>we-need-all-this-info-for-several-reasons:-here's-one-of-themhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140824/21280528312Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:21:10 PDTEx-State Department Official Reveals That Everyone's Focused On The Wrong NSA Surveillance ProgramsMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/14271727930/ex-state-department-official-reveals-that-everyones-focused-wrong-nsa-surveillance-program-look-exec-order-12333.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140718/14271727930/ex-state-department-official-reveals-that-everyones-focused-wrong-nsa-surveillance-program-look-exec-order-12333.shtmlExecutive Order 12333, which we've described as "the NSA's biggest loophole." It's the unchecked power, created entirely via executive order, for the NSA to do anything it wants to spy on anyone -- including Americans -- so long as that data is collected overseas. Remember how the NSA had hacked into Google and Yahoo's datacenters? That was done overseas under EO 12333, allowing them to do whatever they wanted with that information -- content and metadata -- with no oversight at all. For all the talk about how the NSA is bounded by oversight from "all three branches" of government, that's clearly not the case. Everything happening under EO 12333 is mostly considered to be only controlled by the Executive branch, which created the order in the first place. There are no reports to Congress about it, and even Dianne Feinstein has admitted that the Intelligence Committee doesn't touch any of the surveillance done under EO 12333.

In an incredibly revealing opinion piece, former State Department official John Napier Tye, who just left in April of this year, goes on in great detail about how EO 12333 is the real concern and how it's almost certainly a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Executive Order 12333 contains nothing to prevent the NSA from collecting and storing all such communications — content as well as metadata — provided that such collection occurs outside the United States in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence investigation. No warrant or court approval is required, and such collection never need be reported to Congress. None of the reforms that Obama announced earlier this year will affect such collection.

Without any legal barriers to such collection, U.S. persons must increasingly rely on the affected companies to implement security measures to keep their communications private. The executive order does not require the NSA to notify or obtain consent of a company before collecting its users’ data.

Tye actually opens his piece with a rather revealing anecdote about a speech he wrote which had to be adjusted to make it factual. The change... is quite important:

In March I received a call from the White House counsel’s office regarding a speech I had prepared for my boss at the State Department. The speech was about the impact that the disclosure of National Security Agency surveillance practices would have on U.S. Internet freedom policies. The draft stated that “if U.S. citizens disagree with congressional and executive branch determinations about the proper scope of signals intelligence activities, they have the opportunity to change the policy through our democratic process.”

But the White House counsel’s office told me that no, that wasn’t true. I was instructed to amend the line, making a general reference to “our laws and policies,” rather than our intelligence practices. I did.

Even after all the reforms President Obama has announced, some intelligence practices remain so secret, even from members of Congress, that there is no opportunity for our democracy to change them.

In other words, for anyone who claims that the NSA's surveillance can be changed democratically via Congress -- well, the White House basically knows that's simply not true.

For his part, Tye did exactly what NSA defenders keep insisting anyone with problems should do: he filed complaints internally, making use of all the proper channels:

Before I left the State Department, I filed a complaint with the department’s inspector general, arguing that the current system of collection and storage of communications by U.S. persons under Executive Order 12333 violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. I have also brought my complaint to the House and Senate intelligence committees and to the inspector general of the NSA.

Tye also makes it quite clear that the NSA is almost certainly collecting email and internet data, despite denials from General Alexander. It appears that Alexander pulled a "not under this authority" trick to try to mislead people:

All of this calls into question some recent administration statements. Gen. Keith Alexander, a former NSA director, has said publicly that for years the NSA maintained a U.S. person e-mail metadata program similar to the Section 215 telephone metadata program. And he has maintained that the e-mail program was terminated in 2011 because “we thought we could better protect civil liberties and privacy by doing away with it.” Note, however, that Alexander never said that the NSA stopped collecting such data — merely that the agency was no longer using the Patriot Act to do so. I suggest that Americans should dig deeper.

Consider the possibility that Section 215 collection does not represent the outer limits of collection on U.S. persons but rather is a mechanism to backfill that portion of U.S. person data that cannot be collected overseas under 12333.

He also notes that when the Presidential task force recommended changes, it secretly intended some of the changes to apply to EO 12333 but worded it in a way to avoid revealing how much that program was used -- but the White House and the intelligence community are now resisting those changes because of the impact it would have:

The White House understood that Recommendation 12 was intended to apply to 12333. That understanding was conveyed to me verbally by several White House staffers, and was confirmed in an unclassified White House document that I saw during my federal employment and that is now in the possession of several congressional committees.

In that document, the White House stated that adoption of Recommendation 12 would require “significant changes” to current practice under Executive Order 12333 and indicated that it had no plans to make such changes.

There's a lot more in Tye's piece -- but kudos to him for coming out and making this point clearly. While we've raised concerns about EO 12333 in the past, most of the discussion has been focused on the officials programs concerning what happens domestically: Section 215 of the Patriot Act and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. But as Tye makes clear, those programs are only used to "backfill" what can't be picked up under EO 12333 -- a program that has no real oversight, and which is used broadly to collect all kinds of content on people around the globe, including Americans.

Thanks to Tye for standing up and stating clearly what's going on. Hopefully it will lead others to stand up and get the White House and the NSA to come clean.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>don't get bogged down in section 215 and 702https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140718/14271727930Fri, 9 May 2014 17:38:30 PDTUK Parliament Finally Admits That Snowden Revelations Reveal That GCHQ Oversight Is BrokenMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140509/06575327176/uk-parliament-finally-admits-that-snowden-revelations-reveal-that-gchq-oversight-is-broken.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140509/06575327176/uk-parliament-finally-admits-that-snowden-revelations-reveal-that-gchq-oversight-is-broken.shtmlmuch worse. Making newspapers destroy hard drives, detaining people at airports for "terroristic" acts of journalism and generally seeking to block any and all discussion goes a level beyond what's happened in the US. And it's become clear that, as weak as oversight of the intelligence community has been in the US, it's been even worse in the UK, where its own "watchdog" only has one full-time employee.

And, while there's been at least a somewhat healthy debate about the state of surveillance within the US Congress, it's been much more muted over in the UK. So it's encouraging to see a new report come from a group of UK Members of Parliament that issues a blistering condemnation of the current state of oversight of the UK intelligence community:

A highly critical report by the Commons home affairs select committee published on Friday calls for a radical reform of the current system of oversight of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, arguing that the current system is so ineffective it is undermining the credibility of the intelligence agencies and parliament itself.

The MPs say the current system was designed in a pre-internet age when a person's word was accepted without question. "It is designed to scrutinise the work of George Smiley, not the 21st-century reality of the security and intelligence services," said committee chairman, Keith Vaz. "The agencies are at the cutting edge of sophistication and are owed an equally refined system of democratic scrutiny. It is an embarrassing indictment of our system that some in the media felt compelled to publish leaked information to ensure that matters were heard in parliament."

Of course, the current head of the intellegence and security committee in Parliament, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, pretty much dismissed the entire report with a wave of the hand, calling it "old hat."

Still, the report is fairly damning for the intelligence community, and directly notes what a service Ed Snowden appears to have done in exposing just how out of control the intelligence community has become -- and what little real oversight the government has over it. While some MPs (from the Labour and Lib Dem parties) sought to congratulate the Guardian for "responsibly reporting" the Snowden leaks, others from the Tory party voted them down. Still, it's good to see members from two of the three major UK political parties admit that you can responsibly report on these things and that Snowden helped to open up a "wide and international public debate."

The report also contrasts how the Guardian has responded to Parliamentary inquiry with that of the intelligence community:

Their report says Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, responded to criticism of newspapers that decided to publish Snowden's disclosures, including the head of MI6's claim that it was "a gift to terrorists", by saying that the alternative would be that the next Snowden would just "dump the stuff on the internet".

The MPs say: "One of the reasons that Edward Snowden has cited for releasing the documents is that he believes the oversight of security and intelligence agencies is not effective. It is important to note that when we asked British civil servants – the national security adviser and the head of MI5 – to give evidence to us they refused. In contrast, Mr Rusbridger came before us and provided open and transparent evidence."

The report makes clear the intelligence chiefs should drop their boycott of wider parliamentary scrutiny. "Engagement with elected representatives is not, in itself, a danger to national security and to continue to insist so is hyperbole," it says.

It's a small step forward, but an important one.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>about-timehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140509/06575327176Thu, 1 May 2014 05:44:00 PDTGCHQ Neglected To Tell Its Overseers That The NSA Granted Widespread Access To PRISM DatabasesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140430/16400427082/gchq-neglected-to-tell-its-overseers-that-nsa-granted-widespread-access-to-prism-databases.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140430/16400427082/gchq-neglected-to-tell-its-overseers-that-nsa-granted-widespread-access-to-prism-databases.shtmlGCHQ was given a taste of widespread access to the NSA PRISM database as well as its bulk metadata collections during the London Olympics in 2012, and that they were basically begging for continuous unrestricted access to those databases. At the time of the documents, the NSA had not yet given GCHQ such access (beyond that one shot during the Olympics) but apparently seemed receptive to the idea. That wasn't the most interesting part of the article, however. After all, what kind of spies would they be if they weren't constantly seeking more access to the troves of info that the NSA had been collecting as well. The part that struck me as just as noteworthy is that it appears that GCHQ hid its level of access to the NSA databases from its overseers in Parliament:

[Julian] Huppert, the member of Parliament, served on a committee that reviewed – and recommended against – a push from the British government for more powers to access private data before the Snowden materials became public last year.

At no point during that process, Huppert says, did GCHQ disclose the extent of its access to PRISM and other then-secret NSA programs. Nor did it indicate that it was seeking wider access to NSA data – even during closed sessions held to allow security officials to discuss sensitive information. Huppert says these facts were relevant to the review and could have had a bearing on its outcome.

“It is now obvious that they were trying to deliberately mislead the committee,” Huppert told The Intercept. “They very clearly did not give us all the information that we needed.”

One of the common themes that these revelations keep re-emphasizing is that the intelligence community keeps insisting that they won't abuse their powers because of their strong "oversight." And yet, every time we get a chance to look more closely at the actual oversight, we find that the oversight is almost non-existent. The intelligence community is as cagey and misleading in private classified sessions as they are in public.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>oversight!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140430/16400427082Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:19:01 PDTThere Is No Oversight: The NSA Withheld Documents From Intelligence Committee HeadsTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140327/08140826708/there-is-no-oversight-nsa-withheld-documents-intelligence-committee-heads.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140327/08140826708/there-is-no-oversight-nsa-withheld-documents-intelligence-committee-heads.shtml
There has never been effective oversight of the NSA's bulk collections programs, or indeed, intelligence agencies in general. There's been a lot of noise made about this vaunted oversight in defense of programs revealed by leaked documents, but this is nothing more than a talking point.

The NSA (along with the CIA) has no interest in real oversight or accountability, not even to the final arbiter of its domestic surveillance, the FISA court. Judge Walton threatened to end the Section 215 collection back in 2008 after uncovering widespread abuse of the collections and the NSA's constant misrepresentation of how it was handling the data it collected.

Over the last several months, it's become apparent that the committees charged with oversight have withheld documents from their colleagues, and the agencies themselves have avoided answering specific questions about their tactics, turning oversight hearings into games of "20 questions."

But one would think the intelligence committees themselves would be on the inside track, considering chairpersons and ranking members are some of the most fervent defenders of domestic surveillance. That assumption would be wrong as well.

Here's Rockefeller explaining why, even back in 2007, intelligence oversight was a joke.

The clip only contains Rockefeller's response to the question (in bold below). Here's the answer in context.

DAVIS: Reports quote administration officials as saying this is going on and it’s being done in a way to avoid oversight of the Intelligence Committee. Is there any way—

ROCKEFELLER: They’ll go to any lengths to do that, as we’ve seen in the last two days [during hearings on FISA].

DAVIS: Is there anything you could do in your position as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee to find answers about this, if it is in fact going on?

ROCKEFELLER: Don’t you understand the way Intelligence works? Do you think that because I’m Chairman of the Intelligence Committee that I just say I want it, and they give it to me? They control it. All of it. ALL of it. ALL THE TIME. I only get - and my committee only gets - what they WANT to give me.

The Bureau of Investigation (BOI) was created on July 26, 1908, after Congress had adjourned for the summer. Attorney General Bonaparte, using Department of Justice expense funds, hired thirty-four people, including some veterans of the Secret Service, to work for a new investigative agency. Its first chief (the title is now known as director) was Stanley Finch. Bonaparte notified Congress of these actions in December, 1908.

If the agency was created without Congressional consent, it stands to reason those in it feel legislative oversight is both unwelcome and unnecessary. There's a lot more oversight happening now, but that's mainly because the NSA can't withhold leaked information from the committees. It's all out in the open.

So, when defenders of the agency start talking about oversight and legality, be sure to remind them that neither of these aspects are particularly strong. The agency operated in darkness for many, many years and the programs that skirted the Constitution were only made legal by dubious, reactionary legislation and secret interpretations of existing laws.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>'oversight'-is-the-new-'forced-myopia'https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140327/08140826708Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:57:53 PDTUK's Intelligence Watchdog 'Group' Only Has One Full-Time Member, Oversight Efforts Compared To British SitcomTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140318/18180126619/uks-intelligence-watchdog-group-only-has-one-full-time-member-oversight-efforts-compared-to-british-sitcom.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140318/18180126619/uks-intelligence-watchdog-group-only-has-one-full-time-member-oversight-efforts-compared-to-british-sitcom.shtml
We have firmly established that the NSA's oversight is a joke. The House Intelligence Committee routinely hid documents from their fellow Congress members. The Senate side is headed by one of the most shameless champions of the surveillance state. (Well, right up until her office was subjected to it…) The administration finally began distancing itself from the NSA's activities months after the first leak, responding to the concerns of Americans with a brief list of weak reforms.

Britain's intelligence services had a system of oversight no better than that seen in the TV comedy Yes, Prime Minister, an MP said on Tuesday during a meeting of a Commons committee.

Julian Huppert, a Liberal Democrat, said the sitcom depicting ineffectual government was an appropriate comparison after it emerged that the intelligence services commissioner appearing before MPs worked only part-time, and operated with only one other staff member.

Two members, one part-time, to oversee the activities of British intelligence services. With that level of involvement, it's hardly a surprise that 6% of the 1,700 warrants issued last year received any sort of scrutiny. With this dearth of personnel, it's hardly a surprise (albeit still unexcusable) that the initial response to the leaks from Mark Waller, the part-time intelligence commissioner charged with overseeing MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, was incredulity: "Crikey. I wanted to know if I had been spoofed for 18 months."

Being a decent guy, but one who felt he had been seriously misled during his 18 months of part-time oversight, Waller immediately tried to get it all sorted out. The recounting of his vigorous efforts to get to the bottom of the intelligence community's misleading portrayal of its activities is what led to the MP's Britcom comparison.

Waller, who looked ill at ease during much of the questioning, said he had gone to see GCHQ to see if there was anything to the allegations. He saw the deputy chief of the GCHQ and was satisfied the allegations were without foundation.

Vaz said: "And how did you satisfy yourself? It seems from your comment that you had a discussion with them."

Waller replied: "Certainly."

Vaz said: "You heard what they had to say."

Waller replied: "Certainly."

Vaz probed further: "And you accepted what they had to say?"

Waller: "Certainly."

"Is that it?" asked Vaz.

"Certainly," replied Waller.

Vaz added: "Just a discussion?"

Waller: "Certainly."

Vaz, in conclusion, said: "And that's the way you were satisfied that there was no circumventing UK law. You went down, you went to see them, you sat round the table, you had a chat?

Julian Huppert, the MP who made the comparison to Yes, Minister summed up Waller's investigative "interrogation" more concisely.

"Can I come back to this comparison between Britain and the US? I presume you are both familiar with Yes, Prime Minister. There is a line there where it says, 'Good Lord, no. Any hint of suspicion, you hold a full inquiry, have a chap straight out for lunch, ask him straight out if there is anything in it and if he says no, you have got to trust a chap's word'."

So, the "watchdog," after feeling he had been lied to for 18 months, decided to confront the agency. The agency responded with "We haven't been lying" and that was apparently good enough for the commissioner. After all, if you can't trust the spies, who can you trust? Waller had done his due diligence, examining roughly 100 of the 1,700 warrants issued and had found nothing indicating anything was out of order.

In Britain, the question, "Who watches the watchers?" has been answered. The answer is, apparently, hardly anyone. Waller, the part-time commissioner charged with overseeing three intelligence agencies, looked "ill at ease" during questioning and initially refused to attend the hearing. But despite his clear reluctance to provide details of the watchdog "group's" clearly inadquate oversight and his embarrassing-to-everyone-involved recounting of his "chat" with GCHQ officials, Waller still insisted he had enough personnel to perform the job capably. This sounds strangely like someone whose real desire isn't to perform rigorous oversight, but rather collect a paycheck untroubled by controversy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>by-comparison,-our-piss-poor-oversight-looks-positively-robusthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140318/18180126619Tue, 18 Mar 2014 15:26:31 PDTPentagon's Watchdog In Charge Of NSA Oversight Admits He Was 'Not Aware' Of NSA's Bulk Data CollectionMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140318/13445126616/pentagons-watchdog-charge-nsa-oversight-admits-he-was-not-aware-nsas-bulk-data-collection.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140318/13445126616/pentagons-watchdog-charge-nsa-oversight-admits-he-was-not-aware-nsas-bulk-data-collection.shtml"all three branches" of government. Of course, that's long since been debunked (especially seeing that all three branches have also demanded reforms to the very same programs). But one of the key points is that this "oversight" is usually not actually oversight at all, because the all important details are obfuscated or otherwise totally hidden from the overseers. And while this has been covered in fairly great detail about the lack of real oversight from Congress and the courts, what about the executive branch?

Well, wonder no more. The main guy in charge of supposedly "overseeing" the NSA's efforts and making sure that they're within the law (even if right up to the edges of it) is the Defense Department's Inspector General (currently Anthony C. Thomas), and he's just admitted that had no idea that the NSA was collecting bulk metadata on a huge swath of phone calls inside the US. According to a report by Spencer Ackerman at The Guardian:

“From my own personal knowledge, those programs, in and of themselves, I was not personally aware,” Thomas said.

He also admitted that the DOD isn't currently, nor does it have any plans to investigate the NSA's bulk surveillance efforts. Basically, he just leaves that up to the NSA's own Inspector General:

“If the NSA IG is looking into something and we feel that their reporting, their investigation is ongoing, we’ll wait to see what they find or what they don’t find, and that may dictate something that we may do. In the course of a planning process, we may get a hotline [call], or we may get some complaint that may dictate an action that we may or not take,” Thomas said.

Specifically on bulk NSA surveillance, Thomas said he was “waiting to see the information that the NSA IG brings forward with the investigations that are going on, and what we often do not want to do is conflict.”

So, this guy, who is in charge of the Pentagon's oversight of the NSA is basically taking a hands off approach to the NSA issue, letting them work out their own solution to what has been declared illegal and unconstitutional activities by two separate executive branch review panels. That doesn't inspire confidence. In fact, it inspires something entirely different: cynicism and a general distrust in government. For a government that keeps saying that the NSA has to rebuild "trust" with the American public, you'd think that it would start by actually having the people who have the mandate for oversight actually do something.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>oversight!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140318/13445126616Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:50:00 PDTNancy Pelosi Admits That Congress Is Scared Of The CIAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140317/07441526589/nancy-pelosi-admits-that-congress-is-scared-cia.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140317/07441526589/nancy-pelosi-admits-that-congress-is-scared-cia.shtmllied repeatedly, has withheld documents and is generally nonresponsive to oversight attempts by Congress. And, with the reports that the CIA spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee, we also find out that for all the bluster and talk of oversight, folks in Congress are actually scared by the intelligence community.

In response to Senator Dianne Feinstein's speech last week calling out the CIA for spying on her staffers, Rep. Nancy Pelosi was asked to comment and gave what might be the most revealing comments to date as to why Congress is so scared of the CIA:

“I salute Sen. Feinstein,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference of the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I’ll tell you, you take on the intelligence community, you’re a person of courage, and she does not do that lightly. Not without evidence, and when I say evidence, documentation of what it is that she is putting forth.”

Pelosi added that she has always fought for checks and balances on CIA activity and its interactions with Congress: “You don’t fight it without a price because they come after you and they don’t always tell the truth.

A few months back, the ACLU had posted something questioning whether or not the intelligence community might be blackmailing Congress. And, quite frequently when we write about the intelligence community, we see suggestions in the comments that certain politicians probably cover for the NSA and CIA because they know what those agencies "have on them." I've always dismissed those kinds of claims as being a bit far-fetched, even if they have plenty of historical precedent. So far, there's certainly been no direct evidence of that happening.

And yet... Pelosi's comments certainly seem to hint at even more nefarious activity by the intelligence community against politicians who dare to actually do the job of oversight. The point of that ACLU post linked above is that, even if it's not happening, the fact that we can't definitively rule it out is a serious problem for democracy. And just the fact that some of the most powerful members of Congress, who are theoretically in charge of oversight, are now publicly admitting that they're scared of how the CIA fights back when they take them on, suggests that the intelligence community really is rotten to the core. And Congressional oversight, as it stands today, is clearly not able to deal with the issue by itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>well-that's-revealinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140317/07441526589Thu, 13 Mar 2014 11:42:48 PDTRep. Rogers Insists CIA Oversight Is Great... Just As We Learn CIA Hid Thousands Of Documents From CongressMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/07235426560/rep-rogers-insists-cia-oversight-is-great-just-as-we-learn-cia-hid-thousands-documents-congress.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140313/07235426560/rep-rogers-insists-cia-oversight-is-great-just-as-we-learn-cia-hid-thousands-documents-congress.shtmlpublic statement on the details, her counterpart in the House, Rep. Mike Rogers (a staunch defender of the intelligence community) had remained mostly quiet. He finally did an interview in which he actually admits that if the CIA broke the law, "that would be a pretty horrific situation and would destroy that legislative-CIA relationship." Relationship? Then there's this nugget, where he suggests that the CIA isn't out of control and Congressional oversight is working great:

"We shouldn't taint the whole agency. The agency is well-overseen, lots of oversight, and they're doing some really incredible work to protect the United States of America."

Well-overseen? Lots of oversight? Right. So, soon after he does this interview, McClatchy releases a story about how the CIA (with support from the White House) has been withholding thousands of documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee who is investigating the CIA's torture program. This is in relation to the report that created this scandal, the supposedly scathing report that condemns the CIA for going even further in torturing people than previously reported and revealing that the torture produced no useful intelligence. And that's without knowing what's in these other documents.

The White House has been withholding for five years more than 9,000 top-secret documents sought by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for its investigation into the now-defunct CIA detention and interrogation program, even though President Barack Obama hasn't exercised a claim of executive privilege.

In contrast to public assertions that it supports the committee's work, the White House has ignored or rejected offers in multiple meetings and in letters to find ways for the committee to review the records, a McClatchy investigation has found.

How's that "oversight" looking now? When the CIA can just hang onto the really embarrassing stuff just because it wants to, you no longer have "oversight." You have an agency that is free to coverup whatever it would like.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>congressional-oversight!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140313/07235426560Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:40:00 PDTSenator Feinstein Finally Finds Surveillance To Get Angry About: When It Happened To Her StaffersMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140311/07212926527/senator-feinstein-finally-finds-surveillance-to-get-angry-about-when-it-happened-to-her-staffers.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140311/07212926527/senator-feinstein-finally-finds-surveillance-to-get-angry-about-when-it-happened-to-her-staffers.shtmlprotect and defend the various intelligence organizations. However, as we've been discussing, Feinstein has wanted to declassify and publish an apparently devastating $40 million 6,300 page report detailing how the CIA's torture program was a complete disaster. The CIA has been fighting hard against this, and in the last few weeks, it came out that the CIA also spied on Senate staffers who were working on the report, after they'd uncovered an internal CIA document that corroborated the big report, and which showed the CIA had lied to the Senate. The CIA has hit back trying to blame the staffers for "illegally" taking a classified document, but that argument rings hollow.

Feinstein is apparently quite furious about all of this and let loose this morning about the CIA, claiming that they not only spied on the staffers, but secretly removed documents from the computers the staffers were using. She directly claimed that the CIA "may have undermined the constitutional framework" of Congressional oversight. That's not a charge one throws around lightly.

Besides possible constitutional violations, Feinstein said the CIA may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, various federal laws and a presidential executive order that bars the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance. She said she has asked for an apology and recognition that the CIA search of the committee's computers was inappropriate, but, "I have received neither."

While this confirms much of what was reported last week, it's noteworthy that Feinstein is speaking out about it. To date, she has tried to avoid saying much about this whole debate publicly, but it appears that the issue has finally boiled over. As we noted last week, having the CIA spy on its Senate overseers (and potentially tampering with their computers to remove documents) is an incredible overreach.

Of course, wasn't it just less than two months ago that Feinstein claimed that the intelligence community would never abuse its powers, because they were made up of professionals whose activities are "strictly vetted"? Perhaps she'll now go back and admit that perhaps she shouldn't be so trusting of the intelligence community when they're spying on everyone else, beyond just her staffers.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>well,-look-at-thathttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140311/07212926527Thu, 23 Jan 2014 03:28:00 PSTFederal Civil Liberties Board To Issue Scathing Condemnation Of Bulk Metadata Program And The Bogus Defenses Of ItMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140122/23082925964/federal-civil-liberties-board-to-issue-scathing-condemnation-bulk-metadata-program-bogus-defenses-it.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140122/23082925964/federal-civil-liberties-board-to-issue-scathing-condemnation-bulk-metadata-program-bogus-defenses-it.shtmlbefore the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) had a chance to weigh in. As we noted, the PCLOB is the government organization that should be looking into this issue. The PCLOB had briefed the President a week or so earlier, and that may explain why he sought to get his speech out before their report came out: the report, to be released later today, clearly states that the NSA's bulk metadata collection program is illegal and should end.

In a strongly worded report to be issued Thursday, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) said that the statute upon which the program was based, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, “does not provide an adequate basis to support this program.”

The board’s conclusion goes further than President Obama, who said in a speech Friday that he thought the NSA’s database of records should be moved out of government hands but did not call for an outright halt to the program. The board had shared its conclusions with Obama in the days leading up to his speech.

It seems clear that President Obama clearly wanted to get his speech out of the way before this report came out. The PCLOB has found the same basic thing that the President's own task force (and Judge Leon) found: that the bulk data collection on pretty much everyone's phone call data had been almost entirely useless (while violating everyone's privacy). According to the Washington Post:

“We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”

The full report, which sounds like it will be well worth reading, clearly appears to recognize that the NSA and the FISA Court reinterpreted the law in secret, in a manner that directly conflicts with the plain reading of the law -- exactly what Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have been screaming about for years:

But the board found that it is impossible that all the records collected — billions daily — could be relevant to a single investigation “without redefining that word in a manner that is circular, unlimited in scope.” Moreover, instead of compelling phone companies to turn over records already in their possession, the program requires them to furnish newly generated call data on a daily basis. “This is an approach lacking foundation in the statute,” the report said.

“At its core, the approach boils down to the proposition that essentially all telephone records are relevant to essentially all international terrorism investigations,” the report said. This approach, it said, “at minimum, is in deep tension with the statutory requirement that items obtained through a Section 215 order be sought for ‘an investigation,’ not for the purpose of enhancing the government’s counterterrorism capabilities generally.”

Importantly, unlike the task force, the PCLOB calls bullshit on the oft-repeated claim that a program like the Section 215 program would have prevented 9/11. This has been debunked multiple times, but here is a government organization doing the debunking:

The board rejected the contention made by officials from Obama on down that the program was necessary to address a gap arising from a failure to detect an al Qaeda terrorist in the United States, Khalid al-Mihdhar, prior to the 2001 attacks. Mihdhar was in phone contact with a safehouse in Yemen, and though the NSA had intercepted the calls, it did not realize at the time that Mihdhar was calling from San Diego.

“The failure to identify Mihdhar’s presence in the United States stemmed primarily from a lack of information sharing among federal agencies, not of a lack of surveillance capabilities,” the report said, noting that in early 2000 the CIA knew Mihdhar had a visa enabling him to enter the United States but did not advise the FBI or watchlist him. “...This was a failure to connect the dots, not a failure to connect enough dots.”

Second, the report said, the government need not have collected the entire nation’s calling records to identify the San Diego number from which Mihdhar made his calls. It asserted that the government could have used existing legal authorities to request from U.S. phone companies the records of any calls made to or from the Yemen number. “Doing so could have identified the San Diego number on the other end of the calls,” though, it noted, the speed of the carriers’ responses likely would vary.

The report also apparently calls bullshit on the claim made by some, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, that the program was necessary in stopping the plot to bomb the NYC subway.

I'm sure we'll have more on this report, but it's yet another condemnation of the program which the President is trying to keep going, while pretending he's ending it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>another onehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140122/23082925964Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:00:46 PSTUSTR Refuses To Show Up For Senate Hearing On Fast TrackMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140116/23071625916/ustr-refuses-to-show-up-senate-hearing-fast-track.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140116/23071625916/ustr-refuses-to-show-up-senate-hearing-fast-track.shtmlconcerns that we've heard from Congress about the USTR's desire for fast track authority is the fact that the USTR has been positively dismissive of Congressional attempts at transparency. While the USTR pretends that getting fast track actually means great cooperation with Congress, apparently USTR boss Michael Froman decided to bend over and tell Congress to kiss his ass by not even bothering to show up for the Senate's hearing on fast track authority.

Several committee members said they were puzzled and disappointed that USTR Michael Froman passed on an opportunity to convince some skeptical lawmakers they need to establish Fast Track authority for President Barack Obama’s priority Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

“I wish they were here,” said Portman, a member of the committee and a former US trade representative under President George W. Bush. “It’s important.”

This shows the kind of disdain that the USTR appears to hold Congress in. Congress remains a mere nuisance in the USTR's ongoing efforts to put forth the best agreement possible for a bunch of crony friends who will soon be offering USTR staffers new jobs as lobbyists.

If the USTR can't even bother to show up to argue for fast track, while arguing how important it is, perhaps it suggests that Congress really ought not to give the USTR that kind of power. So far, the USTR has not been transparent. It has directly lied, repeatedly, to the American public about what it's trying to do, and when given the chance to explain itself to the Senate committee in charge of the very bill it wants to give it more power over the TPP and TTIP/TAFTA, it blows it off.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>how's-that-for-working-closely-with-congresshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140116/23071625916Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:52:42 PSTCongressional Reps Ask Bruce Schneier To Explain To Them What The NSA Is Doing, Because The NSA Won't Tell ThemMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140116/13152525907/congressional-reps-ask-bruce-schneier-to-explain-to-them-what-nsa-is-doing-because-nsa-wont-tell-them.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140116/13152525907/congressional-reps-ask-bruce-schneier-to-explain-to-them-what-nsa-is-doing-because-nsa-wont-tell-them.shtmlto come brief them on what the NSA is doing because the NSA won't tell them:

This morning I spent an hour in a closed room with six Members of Congress: Rep. Logfren, Rep. Sensenbrenner, Rep. Scott, Rep. Goodlate, Rep Thompson, and Rep. Amash. No staffers, no public: just them. Lofgren asked me to brief her and a few Representatives on the NSA. She said that the NSA wasn't forthcoming about their activities, and they wanted me -- as someone with access to the Snowden documents -- to explain to them what the NSA was doing. Of course I'm not going to give details on the meeting, except to say that it was candid and interesting. And that it's extremely freaky that Congress has such a difficult time getting information out of the NSA that they have to ask me. I really want oversight to work better in this country.

There's really not much more to be said about that, other than it shows what a complete joke it is for anyone to claim that Congress has real oversight over the NSA. It's great that these Reps would reach out to someone with qualifications like Schneier to have this kind of conversation. It's depressing that such a thing was necessary.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>look-at-thathttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140116/13152525907Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:31:05 PSTThe GAO's Office In The NSA Is Collecting Dust Because Congress Hasn't Asked For A Report In YearsTim Cushinghttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140107/07182325785/gaos-office-nsa-is-collecting-dust-because-congress-hasnt-asked-report-years.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140107/07182325785/gaos-office-nsa-is-collecting-dust-because-congress-hasnt-asked-report-years.shtmlrepeatedly proven this assertion false as members of the supposedly stringent oversight continue to state their shock and dismay over what's been uncovered.

Years ago, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, conducted routine audits and investigations of the National Security Agency, such that the two agencies were in “nearly continuous contact” with one another. In the post-Snowden era, GAO could perform that oversight function once again.

“NSA advises that the GAO maintains a team permanently in residence at NSA, resulting in nearly continuous contact between the two organizations,” according to a 1994 CIA memorandum for the Director of Central Intelligence.

Why haven't we read any damning reports from the GAO about the NSA's abuses over the past several years? Well, apparently it's because no one wants to know.

At a 2008 Senate hearing, Sen. Daniel Akaka asked the GAO about its relationship with NSA. “I understand that GAO even had an office at the NSA,” Sen. Akaka noted.

“We still actually do have space at the NSA,” replied David M. Walker, then-Comptroller General, the head of the GAO. “We just don’t use it. And the reason we don’t use it is we are not getting any requests [from Congress]. So I do not want to have people sitting out there twiddling their thumbs.”

There's that oversight at work again. Idle for "years" by 2008 and no signs that anything has occurred since then. The GAO maintains an office (currently unstaffed) within the NSA but because if no one's asking any questions, it's not providing any answers.

If there's something the GAO does well, it's track down internal issues and problematic behavior. Unfortunately, it's limited to recommending courses of action rather than mandating any serious changes, meaning its follow-up reports are generally filled with descriptions of how these audited entities failed to pursue the recommendations and (often) performed considerably worse during the interim.

On the other hand, the GAO's reports do at least make it clear to the American public exactly what's wrong with nearly everything the government spends its money on. It's very limited accountability that does nothing to change the underlying agency ethos, but at least it prevents them from pretending these problems don't exist.

Being in-house should naturally raise concerns about the GAO's objectivity. Unfortunately, considering the nature of the agency's intelligence work, there's probably no way around that. But the first step in renewing this layer of oversight is to remind Congress of its existence. It has the power to order a GAO investigation, but until it does, the office will continue to gather dust and the NSA's internal problems will worsen -- or at least go unnoticed by Congress.

Aftergood points out that James Clapper has ordered the agency to be responsive to GAO inquiries, apparently in the eventuality that it ever gets back to the business of asking questions.

In Intelligence Community Directive 114, issued in 2011 following years of stagnation in GAO oversight of intelligence, DNI James Clapper instructed U.S. intelligence agencies to be responsive to GAO, at least within certain boundaries.

“It is IC policy to cooperate with the Comptroller General, through the GAO, to the fullest extent possible, and to provide timely responses to requests for information,” the DNI wrote.

Of course, Clapper's definition of "responsive" probably differs greatly from the normally-accepted usage of the word. Having Clapper condone cooperation with an agency that exists to find flaws and misconduct is a bit underwhelming. The NSA's top men have been less than cooperative in the many hearings since the Snowden leaks began, most often recycling old talking points and insisting on discussing it in the context of one program (Section 215) when everyone else is clearly focused on another area.

Still, whatever the GAO finds (that somehow doesn't get blotted out with black ink) will provide more useful information for its Congressional overseers. This certainly shouldn't be used in place of more independent oversight committees, but it should prove to be a valuable addition. The real question Congress needs to answer is why it has ignored this option for so many years.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>oh,-you-mean-this-'stringent-oversight?'https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20140107/07182325785Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:42:37 PSTCommittee That Grilled Guardian Editor Over Snowden Documents Won't Get To Question Intelligence BossMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131211/19020925539/committee-that-grilled-guardian-editor-over-snowden-documents-wont-get-to-question-intelligence-boss.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131211/19020925539/committee-that-grilled-guardian-editor-over-snowden-documents-wont-get-to-question-intelligence-boss.shtmlridiculous performance put on by the UK Parliament in quizzing the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, concerning the legality of reporting on the Snowden leaks. Now, it appears that the same committee sought to hold a hearing with the head of the British MI5 intelligence agency, Andrew Parker, in order to see if he could back up the claims that the Guardian's reporting had put UK citizens in danger. However, that's not happening. UK officials won't let Parker testify in front of the same committee. Why? Because.

The home secretary, Theresa May, told the home affairs committee chairman, Keith Vaz, that she had rejected the request for the spy chief to give evidence because his appearance would "duplicate" the existing oversight provided by the prime ministerially appointed intelligence and security committee.

And, indeed, it is true that the intelligence and security committee held a hearing on the topic not so long ago -- but, like the Congressional counterparts, it was almost entirely softballs allowing them to spew rhetoric, rather than answer serious questions concerning the intelligence community.

Even worse, it appears that the UK leadership is working extra hard to keep trying to pass a hot potato to make sure no one has to testify on this particular issue:

A similar request for Kim Darroch, the national security adviser, to give evidence to the committee's inquiry into counter-terrorism was also rejected in a letter from David Cameron. He said "it was not a good idea" because Darroch's role focused on providing private advice to him and the national security council and his appearance would "set a difficult precedent".

The prime minister said it should be left to the home secretary to give evidence to the MPs on their concerns about counter-terrorism and the Guardian's disclosures of mass digital surveillance by GCHQ and the US national security agency.

The decision prompted a furious reaction from Vaz, who said: "The prime minister has suggested that the home secretary should come before us to answer our questions and Theresa May is suggesting that it is a matter for the intelligence and security committee. We cannot play pass the parcel on the issue of accountability on these important issues.

While the US process has been something of a joke, at least Congress has been able to get James Clapper, Keith Alexander and others out to testify a bunch of times on these issues. Some in the UK, however, would apparently like to sweep the whole issue under the rug.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>of-course-nothttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131211/19020925539Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:08:19 PSTRep. Peter King's Office Suggests NPR Producer Lied About Being Detained At Border By DHSMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131209/13560825507/rep-peter-kings-office-suggests-npr-producer-lied-about-being-detained-border-dhs.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131209/13560825507/rep-peter-kings-office-suggests-npr-producer-lied-about-being-detained-border-dhs.shtmlOn the Media, Sarah Abdurrahman and many of her friends and family (all of whom are American citizens), were detained by US customs and border patrol (CBP) officials at the US Canadian border for many hours with no explanation. Their treatment was horrific, and worse, no one at DHS seems to have any interest in explaining what happened or why. On the Media then created a cool crowdsourcing tool asking people to call their Congressional representatives to try to get answers.

The latest report involves some of the people who have called and what sort of response they got back. Not surprisingly, so far, not much has come of the effort, as no one in Congress seems particularly interested. However, I did want to call out one particular interaction, involving Rep. Pete King's "new media guy" who a caller reached. The caller, Philip Elmer-Dewitt, explained Sarah's story, and King's staff apparently got confrontational. According to the caller:

But, basically his answer was that Sarah should call her representative and that's all there was to it.

Of course, it's worth remembering that Rep. Pete King famously was very supportive of IRA terrorists, but now argues that Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald are "traitors" and even that Greenwald should be prosecuted (based on completely false claims that King appears to have made up himself). He's also claimed that calling the NSA's activities "snooping" or "spying" amounts to slander. Now, apparently, his staff are getting confrontational with constituents asking rather basic questions about how DHS is treating American citizens at the border. Makes you wonder whom Rep. Peter King actually thinks he's representing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>gotcha-momenthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131209/13560825507Wed, 27 Nov 2013 12:35:00 PSTWall Street Journal Columnist Repeatedly Gets His Facts Wrong About NSA SurveillanceTrevor Timm, EFFhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131127/11002925391/wall-street-journal-columnist-repeatedly-gets-his-facts-wrong-about-nsa-surveillance.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131127/11002925391/wall-street-journal-columnist-repeatedly-gets-his-facts-wrong-about-nsa-surveillance.shtmlWall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz wrote a misleading and error-filled column on NSA surveillance Monday based on documents obtained by EFF through our Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Since we’ve been poring over the documents for the last week, we felt it was important we set the record straight about what they actually reveal.

Crovitz:

Edward Snowden thought he was exposing the National Security Agency's lawless spying on Americans. But the more information emerges about how the NSA conducts surveillance, the clearer it becomes that this is an agency obsessed with complying with the complex rules limiting its authority.

That’s an interesting interpretation of the recently released documents, given that one of the two main FISA court opinions released says the NSA was engaged in “systemic overcollection” of American Internet data for years, as well as committed “longstanding and pervasive violations of the prior orders in this matter.” The court summarized what it called the government’s “frequent failures to comply with the [surveillance program’s] terms” and their “apparent widespread disregard of [FISA court imposed] restrictions.”

Crovitz:

[The documents] portray an agency acting under the watchful eye of hundreds of lawyers and compliance officers.

Again, this is not what the actual FISA court opinions portray. “NSA’s record of compliance with these rules has been poor,” and “those responsible for conducting oversight failed to do so effectively,” FISA court Judge Bates wrote in the key opinion released last week. In another FISA court opinion from 2009, released two months ago, the NSA admitted that not a single person in the entire agency accurately understood or could describe the NSA’s whole surveillance system to the court.

These documents disprove one of Mr. Snowden's central claims: "I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the president if I had a personal email," he told the Guardian, a British newspaper.

Here, Crovitz is setting up a strawman. Snowden wasn’t talking about the NSA’s legal authority, but their technical authority to conduct such searches. Snowden was likely referring to XKeyScore, which the Guardian reported allowed NSA analysts to “search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.”

We actually have a specific example that proves Snowden’s point. As the New York Timesreported in 2009, an NSA analyst “improperly accessed” former President Bill Clinton’s personal email. More recently, we’ve learned that the NSA analysts abused the agency vast surveillance powers to spying on ex-spouses or former lovers.

Crovitz:

The NSA also released the legal arguments the Justice Department used in 2006 to justify collection of phone metadata-the telephone number of the calling and called parties and the date, time and duration of the call.

...

Metadata collection is about connecting the dots linking potential terrorist accomplices. The Clinton administration created barriers to the use of metadata, which the 9/11 Commission concluded let the terrorists avoid detection. Since then, metadata has helped stop dozens of plots, including an Islamist plan to blow up the New York Stock Exchange in 2008.

Again, not true. As Intelligence Committee members Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen. Mark Udall have continually emphasized, there is “no evidence” that the phone metadata program is effective at stopping terrorists. Independent analyses have come to the same conclusion. When called out on that number in a Congressional hearing, even NSA Director Keith Alexander admitted the number was exaggerated.

The only “disrupted plot” the NSA can point to that was solely the work of the phone metadata program was a case where a man from San Diego sent a few thousand dollars to the al-Shabaab organization in Africa in 2008. In other words, the metadata did not disrupt an active terrorist plot inside the US at all.

Crovitz:

The declassified brief from 2006 made clear that such metadata "would never even be seen by any human being unless a terrorist connection were first established," estimating that "0.000025% or one in four million" of the call records "actually would be seen by a trained analyst."

The major 2009 FISA court opinion released in September, that apparently Mr. Crovitz either didn’t read or conveniently left out of his piece, showed that the NSA had been systematically querying part of this phone records database for years for numbers that the agency did not have a “reasonable articulable suspicion” were involved in terrorism—as they were required to have by the FISA court. Of the more than 17,000 numbers that the NSA was querying everyday, the NSA only had “reasonable articulable suspicion” for 1,800 of them.

The FISA court concluded, five years after the metadata program was brought under a legal framework, that it had been “so frequently and systematically violated that it can fairly be said that this critical element of the overall…regime has never functioned effectively.”

These documents do not paint a picture of an agency with a clean privacy record and a reputation for following court rules, as Mr. Crovitz claims, and in fact, they show why it is vital Congress passes substantive NSA reform immediately. You can go here to take action.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>journalism!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131127/11002925391Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:42:49 PSTLess Than 20% Of Americans Believe That There's Adequate Oversight Of The NSAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131103/23113025112/less-than-20-americans-believe-that-theres-adequate-oversight-nsa.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131103/23113025112/less-than-20-americans-believe-that-theres-adequate-oversight-nsa.shtml"rigorous oversight" of the NSA by the courts and Congress. Of course, that talking point has been debunked thoroughly, but NSA defenders keep trotting it out. It appears that the public is not buying it. At all. A recent poll from YouGov found that only 17% of people believe that Congress provides "adequate oversight" on the spying of Americans. A marginally better 20% (though, within the 4.6% margin of error, so meaningless difference really) felt that Congress provides adequate oversight of the NSA when it comes to collecting data on foreigners. Basically, that part of the NSA story just isn't particularly believable in light of everything that's come out. Oh, and people are paying attention to the news. A full 87% had heard something about the spying on foreign countries -- with only 14% thinking that such a program has helped US interests abroad.

Oh, and it gets worse. According to a different study, the more informed people are about the NSA, the less they like what the NSA is doing. The NSA has been insisting if people could only understand more about its actions they'd be much more comfortable with the agency's actions, but this study suggests that's not quite true either.

Neither of these findings should come as a shock to most people outside of the NSA, but for our friends over at the NSA reading this, it would appear that your talking points aren't working. Perhaps, next time, try (1) telling the truth and (2) not trampling all over the Constitution.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>that-story's-not-workinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131103/23113025112Thu, 7 Nov 2013 08:48:01 PSTInspector General For Intelligence Community Rejects Congress' Request To Investigate The NSAMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131106/17060025156/inspector-general-intelligence-community-rejects-congress-request-to-investigate-nsa.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131106/17060025156/inspector-general-intelligence-community-rejects-congress-request-to-investigate-nsa.shtmltold them he just can't do it, according to a recent report at Politico.

“At present, we are not resourced to conduct the requested review within the requested timeframe,” wrote McCullough, before adding he and other agency inspectors general are weighing now whether they can combine forces on a larger probe.

Not surprisingly, those who asked for the help, are not pleased. Senator Pat Leahy appears particularly angry about this:

That response didn’t sit well with Leahy, who raised the letter during a scathing speech on the Senate floor Wednesday that slammed the intelligence community for a “trust deficit.” Leahy also emphasized his belief that “the American people are rightly concerned that their private information could be swept up into a massive database, and then compromised.”

While it may be true that McCullough does not have significant resources to do this kind of investigation, that really just highlights the problem. There clearly is not sufficient oversight over the NSA's activities. The fact that the very person in charge of this kind of investigation, when told to do it by Congress, says he can't, should demonstrate just how little actual oversight there is. Perhaps instead of putting more money towards stopping the next Ed Snowden, the Senate should give that money to the inspector general to investigate the NSA and encourage the next Ed Snowden to come forward.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>oversight!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131106/17060025156Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:25:16 PDTNSA Officials Admit: 'We're Screwed Now' After Feinstein's StatementMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131028/18152925045/nsa-officials-admit-were-screwed-now-after-feinsteins-statement.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131028/18152925045/nsa-officials-admit-were-screwed-now-after-feinsteins-statement.shtml"conversion" to realizing that perhaps the NSA is out of control with its spying, and needs greater oversight and control, apparently her statement sent chills through officials at the NSA. After all, Feinstein was the strongest Senate defender of the NSA's activities -- to the point that we'd suggested in the past a somewhat co-dependent relationship. However, it sounds like she just turned on the NSA and has suggested that perhaps it needs to go to rehab. Shane Harris and John Hudson at Foreign Policy's The Cable blog have the details:

"We're really screwed now," one NSA official told The Cable. "You know things are bad when the few friends you've got disappear without a trace in the dead of night and leave no forwarding address."

Of course, that's the sort of crazy hyperbole that the NSA is increasingly known for. Feinstein hasn't "disappeared." She's just finally pointed out what many of the rest of us have been arguing for ages: that the NSA is out of control, going way beyond what it's authorized to do, and has little real oversight, in part because of its regular practice of misleading pretty much everyone over the details and extent of its surveillance programs.

Even more important, the statement from that NSA official shows that they still don't recognize what got them into this mess. If the NSA had actually been upfront about what it was doing with others, perhaps it wouldn't find itself in this mess today. It makes you wonder if the NSA is so focused on being super secret about its operations to the outside world that it couldn't distinguish enough about being transparent to government oversight bodies as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>maybe-shouldn't-have-pushed-the-limits-so-muchhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131028/18152925045Tue, 29 Oct 2013 05:06:16 PDTFive Reactions To Dianne Feinstein Finally Finding Something About The NSA To Get Angry AboutMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131028/15370525042/feinstein-never-upset-about-spying-american-public-is-furious-about-nsa-spying-foreign-leaders.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131028/15370525042/feinstein-never-upset-about-spying-american-public-is-furious-about-nsa-spying-foreign-leaders.shtmlevery American, including all of her constituents in California. It's not because she finally realized that the NSA specifically avoided letting her know about their widespread abuses. No, it's because she just found out that the NSA also spies on important people, like political leaders around the globe. It seems that has finally ticked off Feinstein, who has released a scathing statement about the latest revelations:

“Unlike NSA’s collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed. Therefore our oversight needs to be strengthened and increased.

“With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of U.S. allies—including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany—let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed.

“Unless the United States is engaged in hostilities against a country or there is an emergency need for this type of surveillance, I do not believe the United States should be collecting phone calls or emails of friendly presidents and prime ministers. The president should be required to approve any collection of this sort.

There are so many different possible reactions to this. Let's go to list form to go through a few:

Most people seem a hell of a lot less concerned about spying on political leaders than the public. After all, you kind of expect espionage to target foreign leaders. It seems incredibly elitist for Feinstein to show concern about spying on political leaders, and not the public. It shows how she views the public as opposed to people on her level of political power. One of them doesn't matter. The other gets privacy.

For all the bluster and anger from Feinstein about this, the Senate Intelligence Committee's mandate is only about intelligence activities that touch on US persons, so it's not even clear that she has any power over their activities strictly in foreign countries targeting foreign individuals. Why she seems to have expected the NSA to let her know about that when the NSA itself has been pretty explicit that avoids telling Congress about anything it can reasonably avoid telling them.

Feinstein has referred to Ed Snowden's leak as "an act of treason." Now that they've revealed something that she believes is improper and deserving of much greater scrutiny, is she willing to revisit that statement?

Given that Feinstein has been angrily banging the drum for months about how her oversight of the intelligence community shows that everything's great, and there's no risk of rogue activity -- yet now she's finally admitting that perhaps the oversight isn't particularly comprehensive, is she willing to admit that her earlier statements are reasonably considered hogwash and discredited? She even says in her statement: "Congress needs to know exactly what our intelligence community is doing. To that end, the committee will initiate a major review into all intelligence collection programs." And yet she's been claiming that oversight has been more than enough for years?

The cynical viewpoint: Feinstein knows the USA Freedom Act is coming out Tuesday, and that it has tremendous political momentum. Sooner or later she was going to have to admit that NSA surveillance was going to be curbed. Did she just happen to choose this latest bit of news for a bit of political theater to join the "time to fix the NSA" crowd?

There are plenty of other things that could be added to the list, but the whole situation seems fairly ridiculous considering about whom we're talking.